For years I've been saying in the vaccine seminar and in my textbook on vaccines that this is just scratching the surface of the enormous body of research into Problems with Vaccines. At my recent lecture in Oxford England an attendee gave me a new book she has written about Shaken Baby Syndrome. In Catherine England's book I learned about the landmark Pourcyrous study on brain inflammation following vaccines. (Journal of Pediatrics 2007, vol 151, p 167) In a sample of 239 premature infants (less than 35 weeks) tests were done using two parameters for brain inflammation: C -reactive protein and evaluation of cardiopulmonary function. It was a very thorough study, University of Tennessee, differentiating the effects from a single vaccine vs. multiple vaccines given to these premature newborns. C-reactive protein is a blood value test, high levels of which indicate inflammation. No wonder the results were kept out of media: they were startling.

Premies who got multiple vaccines: 85% had high CRP. Fully 16% had cardiopulmonary events within 48 hours, including apnea and bradycardia.

In a premie, these effects are potentially fatal, of course.

Brain hemorrhages occurred in 17% of those with single vaccines, and in 24% getting multiple vaccines.

As expected, the most dangerous vaccine was DPT. Multiple vaccines included Hepatitis B, polio, DPT, H. influenzae, and Prevnar. Several things here. The recklessness in giving vaccines to premies isn't even discussed. Oh, so it’s for the sake of ‘science,’ so it’s OK, right? Of course there are no risk/benefit studies whatsoever in this area, but it stands to reason if a normal newborn takes at least 2 years to develop even a rudimentary immune system, how much more ill-advised it is to subject a premie who has no immune system at all as well as no blood brain barrier to an array of vaccines which contain neurotoxins such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol in addition to a host of manmade pathogens.

Knowing this alone, what kind of "scientist" would it take to even conduct a study like this in the first place on the fragile systems of premature infants? Sounds like something Dr. Mengele would come up with.

One struggles for adjectives to describe this policy of vaccinating premies. But if these dangerous results are so high at this age, how much lower results could we expect just a few weeks later when they're at the usual age for getting multiple vaccines? What are we doing? What are scientists playing at?

How smart or how dumb do you have to be to realize how cavalier we're being with the most delicate medium in the universe: the infant's brain neurology? You can bet these geniuses aren't experimenting with their own children.

Here's how the condescending conclusion of this searing study evaluates its own data on potentially lethal apnea and slowed heart beat: "In a minority of infants immunized, cardiorespiratory events were associated with presumed need for intervention".

A minority? 17% is a pretty high minority especially if you're talking about the chances of your own infant dying from slowed heart rate and cessation of breathing! And for what?

The value of vaccines has never been clearly demonstrated, never proven in an independent controlled risk/benefit analysis. In other words, we don't know if they work or not. But we're positive they can kill babies. “Presumed need for intervention”? Like what? Drugs? Intensive care?

As a parent, wouldn’t it be important to know that your child stands a 17% of a breathing crisis as the result of a vaccine? Or a 24% chance of brain hemorrhage with multiple vaccines, which multiples routinely begin at 2 months of age, with 7 vaccines on one day? I mean here’s the information from the best medical sources. Is the pediatrician going to tell the parents about these studies? Isn’t this level of danger worth knowing about?